Do you think Arkham Origin's scores are coherent?

I just finished Arkham Origins today and what I played was a very good game. It's definitely not as good as Arkham City, you can notice that that superb talent is gone, yet the game still amazing. It has a superb capaign and a improved combat system that make your time very enjoyable.

Yet it bombed with reviewers, with the main problem being it was to similar to Arkham City. But here is the thing, Arkham City was one of the best games of this generation, so being similar to it is certain good, right? The reviews say no, not really.

Do you agree with this? See, I'm not asking if you would score it low, but if you think that reviewer, in particualr gamespot since we are here, have a coherent way to score sequels. I mean, Call of Duty just score 8 here, compared to Origins 6, not to mention all the Assassin's Creed sequels. Do you think that fallows a logical way of analysing a game? Or some games are judged in a different light?

It's absolutely great, but I think this falls in line with the point that we take scores to seriously. I actually found the story very enjoyable, and I thought Troy Baker as the Joker did an excellent job. I'm trying to remember if it actually added anything over City. It's been a while since i've played it.

TC.

I agree with everything you say. Arkham City was Titanic, I can't even imagine setting a goal of making a game vastly superior to AC.

I've been having a lot of fun with Knupellman Arkham Origins. As myself and another gentlemen were saying the other day, even though this is a sequel it should be assessed on it's own merits - it stands up tall next to most modern games.

But yet call of duty and other games get the same scores with the same "predictability" and so on get a free pass.

I'm sorry but this site has become a joke for reviews.

Without playing it I know it's better than a 6.

Oh, I definitely agree. The big-money games get free passes. Still, it kinda proves that scores weigh far too much to the individual. Shit, even to the publishers. Just look at MC. Though, It seems that GS has been a little stricter recently, but not by much.

I just ended up buying Origins based on the previous games alone. Even from a different developer, I just really enjoy the series.

Sadly this site has been a joke for reviews the past 5-6 years. This site is slowly becoming the next Kotaku. Also I find it funny how this site scores Battlefield and CoD the same when clearly Battlefield is always better on a technical stand point.

It's a good game. Plays virtually identical to AA & AC, but the art direction and overall story is better in the former.

It's worth playing if you have previously enjoyed the franchise.

I do freakin' hate the freezing. Anybody else had the issue? I'm on the 360.

What does?

If it plays as good as the previous games, that makes it an incredible game.

Reviewers are a joke.

I don't have any problem with reviewers docking the game points for basically being a clone of Arkham City if that is indeed the case. I just wish they would have enough integrity to do that with other franchises that are also guilty of that practice.

I finished the game today and I must say, the game is definitely not a 6. The campaign is simply stellar. The only problems I find with the game are the bugs. Some of the bugs ruin combat by leading to the premature end of freeflow combos. Also ground takedowns are broken. The game was rushed to meet the deadline, no doubt about that.

I think it's forgivable that the game plays similar to the previous Arkham games seeing as there are only 3 main titles in the Arkham series. It's not like Assassin's Creed which has 6 main titles that play more or less the same.

My friend got the 360 version, he's complaining about freezes also.

Yeah, its fantastic. It should get higher than a 6 based solely on its story. Only problem is how buggy it is, and they are squashing that issue.

These things aren't objective. They can't be objective unless you want a review purely on the technical merits. Different reviewers rate reviews in different ways. Opinions change over time. This is only a negative if you're playing System Wars or want all game reviews to be strictly Consumer Reports where they list the features and tell you how well they execute the features with no personal opinions added.

Personally I'm fine with. No other medium is reviewed in the way you guys want games reviewed in. Albums aren't reviewed like, "the last one had 13 tracks, production by [insert producer] and writing by [insert writer]. This one does as well so the scores are equal by default."

The game definitely has been getting reviewed harshly. As others have said the only real problem are the bugs. The story is fantastic along with the voice acting. Some of the boss fights are pretty damn good.

No, I don't think the scores are coherent.

I get the impression Arkham Origins picked up all the flak over the shortcomings of the AAA model, while other games like BF4, CoD Ghosts, or even AC Black Flag, are being given a free pass. Now, I don't consider any of those games bad, and I don't have any problems with a harsh scoring system and a full use of "1-10" scale, I only think, if you're going to be a more harsh critic regarding the lack of "innovation" in AAA franchises, be consistent about it.

Scores. It said that in the sentence :P

It really sucks. I believe it's on all systems, and it's annoying as hell. A simple restart resolves it for a while, but that gets old.

I don't think it deserves critical acclaim or anything but I do think it deserves to be averaging a bit higher overall. it's a MUCH better game than some reviews gave credit for

I'm gonna be super lazy, and simply ask: are any of these the same reviewer? I do think the editors need to be more on the ball, in order to guarantee some consistency.

i've found the pc version very robust. only had a couple of issues. once, i couldn't grapple into a vent, batman just hung there. another time i had a complete freeze, had to restart.

haven't finished though, i just beat bane for the first time.

Nah, they aren't the same reviewer... but yeah, they should really work on being a more consistent group.

While I understand they're all different people with different preferences, as far as the industry and gamers are concerned, they represent Gamespot as a site, and not themselves individually, so some compromises to insure at least some level of consistency should be made.

I agree, which is why editors need to be more consistent. More people need to understand that Gamespot is a group of people, but GS need to understand that they are a singular identity on the internet (to many). It's ridiculous on both ends.

Take all the glitches and issues out of the game it's a sound 8 out 10.